I think you are wrong about this. 3/4 ton diesels are in this same price range now. The EV's have the weight to provide effective stopping power in the 3/4 to 1 ton truck range, and the power is WELL beyond most diesels and more on demand. Ford just screwed the pooch on 329 miles being the max range and for a truck that tows in all weather conditions, the towing when combined with cold weather is just not on par with EV truck offerings from GM and Rivian.

As I said above, Rivian and GM EV trucks have enough range for my needs and meet my minimums of being able to go a minimum of 2 hours at 70MPH while towing in cold weather. I absolutely refuse to go back to ice in any form. I refuse to ever change engine oil in a car ever again and I also don't them problems and maintenance of both ICE and EV in the same vehicle.

Oh, I think the Silverado EV's are adequate. 480+ mile range in best conditions still puts me way over my bladders ability to drive even in the absolute worst conditions of that tow + cold weather. That thing will still be 200'ish miles of towing in cold weather.

F-150 lightning in its form would have been my choice, but it just did not have enough range for my truck needs. It is also very slow charging for the battery size. Both Rivian and GM trucks outperform on those. For me, the absolute minimum range I would settle for is one that has enough base range that it can still go a minimum of 2 hours at 65-70MPH highway speeds while also in the worst conditions possible, namely both towing while also in cold weather. I don't need 400+ mile range when in the best conditions, but it takes that to keep the worst condition range above my minimums. And the Ford just never had it. 329 mile range in the BEST conditions would barely get out of my driveway before needing a charge in single digit temps while heavy towing. I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but still when you calc that the coldest weather can hit you to the point where you only get 60% percent, then lose another 50% on top of that when towing and it just isnt enough.

If you have one that has cellular connectivity and an infotainment system, espeically EV's, the only way that I have found is to track down the telematics module for your car and locate the antenna connector and put a resistor on it to disable it completely. Just disconnecting the shark fin is not enough since the wire itself or even just the connector can function enough that it can still get signal through when it is in areas with very strong signal. But then you use something like a mobile 4G/5G hotspot with true firewall capability and connect the car to that through its ability to use external wifi. Then you block access to GM and onstar sites while still letting things like google maps through for nav so that you don't brick your entire infotainment system. This is what I do on both of my GM EV's.

When are people going to insist that cars are owned by the owner? Security should have no component of trust. Locking out a manufacturer from a connected thing should be something that is enshrined by law. Zero trust is the gold standard worldwide and there should be no trust involved. If something is connected, the owner should be able to force verify what is being sent over that connection and should be able to do it in a way that does not tip off the device that it is being watched that would allow it to change behavior. Manufacturers are not trustworthy and never will be and the owners should always have the ability to lock them out unless there is a documented need for them to communicate with the vehicle. And that means without bricking things like navigation, EV charger finding etc. In other words, the connectivity should be 100% in control of the owner of the device up to and including the law enforced ability to load owner certs on the device and inspect all traffic in and out and block any traffic that does not work in the owners interest. For EV's especially, these things are connected to the grid for God's sake... WHY are the owners not allowed to sandbox these things and only allow them to be communicated with (other than nav or audio video streaming) when there is no documented need for it to happen? Leaving them permanently open to the internet is patently ridiculous from a security perspective. And trusting the manufacturers to do the right thing is just as ridiculous from the privacy side. Trust is not a security or privacy model. Owners should have the ability to ENFORCE it.

Better hope someone other than the police find him first. If he doesn't present ID despite doing no crime he likely get beat to death.

Almost all replacements for passwords are not implemented as a way to prove you have access. They are implemented in a way that forces you to uniquely identify as a specific human being. There is a difference. I will continue to use passwords until there is no other option because a password does not compromise my identity or tie my account to a named human.

I hate how certificate pinning is a thing. It does NOT increase security from the end users perspective. The ONLY thing certificate pinning does is allows weaponizing of devices against the owner where they can not inspect their own traffic to confirm what is being sent. Without certificate pinning you still have full end to end encryption and man in the middle attacks are still secured as long as the 2 endpoints are secured because the caveat is that you have to have physically secured endpoints. But you should have that anyway. Certificate pinning only allows companies to secure the traffic in a way that keeps even the owner of one of those 2 endpoints from being able to confirm what is being sent. That should never be allowed to happen. When security is gauged on the ability of a company to secure traffic against one of the participants, then there is something bad wrong.

Exactly, next people are going to be doing legal discovery on levi's jeans because the jeans helped the shooter keep his balls from flapping during the shooting. Stop trying to blame tools and keep the blame squarely on the human that does the evil thing.

I hate how it is always presented like lack of encryption is a bad thing. In many cases it is not. Someone has to have physical control to get to that data. Physical control is the first piece of security. Encryption in many cases after that protects NOTHING from the owners perspective. Encryption after that fact, other than the end to end communications are almost always used AGAINST the owner. Metrics and information that the owner never gets a chance to explicitly deny. I agree with encrypted communications and even encryption at rest, but things like pinned certificates and other aspects of encryption do absolutely nothing but allow manufacturers to weaponize things against the owner. Being blocked out is the first step, but after that comes data mining. Then after that comes artificially crippled features so those features can be sold back to you piecemill. Fuck that and them. Every connected thing should be forced by the government to have features at the bare minimum that allow the owner to see data streams and control what goes where. Zero trust is the gold standard in security and the fact that owners are not allowed to lock out the manufacturer from EV's and other cars is patently ridiculous. These things are connected to the grid a large portion of the time for God's sake. Government needs to step in and enforce that all connected things have a root level firewall that allows the OWNER to control the security and where the data goes and the ability to inspect encrypted traffic to see if they approve of it leaving the vehicle or the connected thing.

Will they have their batteries always connected to the internet like they force us to do with our cars? I think not. Commercial and Industrial applications understand the concept of zero trust security and being able to lock your stuff down and would literally laugh if they were forced to keep it online all the time even when there is no documented need for them to be online, but yet they force owners to trust them (trust is and never should be a security model) and owners should always have the ability to lock out the manufacturer when there is not a documented need. Even homeowner EV's are still regularly connected to the grid and should be able to be locked down to the OWNERS specification, not the manufacturer.

If you have to use a cloud based user account they already have their dick in your ass.

That is the entire problem with computing as it has evolved over the years. In the early days of computing, computer code was meant to enable the owner. Laws are and always have been sufficient to punish people from breaking the law without needing tech specific versions of many laws. The code that came out of those eras was meant to enable you to do things. Things that did not work, did not work because it was an oversight or just not a planned feature. There was never any code to make something NOT work by design. As computing progressed, the OS and app creators have gotten more and more heavy handed and writing more and more code to break things on purpose to the point where in todays modern operating systems there is significantly more code to STOP you from doing things that there is to enable it. DRM, artificial crippling so that functionality can be sold back, attempts to lock you out of your system to make you only a consumer all of this is creating more code and bloat than all of the code that is there to simply make it do things, by a significant margin. Things should never be police to their owners. Computing should enable people to do their wildest dreams if they have the skills. Laws always were sufficient to punish people for doing bad things with that power without having tech specific versions of those laws that have be a large component of ruining the computing landscape.

I would rather see Chinese vehicles at a price point that erases US car makers off the map if they refuse to allow us the ability to secure our things against THEM. At least we know right from the get go that the Chinese are going to do it so at least we can get help from the government in securing the Chinese crap. But the American makers, like how GM got busted selling everyones non-anonymized data and how GM encrypted the canbus to keep them from having to compete with anyone for add ons. All current EV's in the US market force the systems to be online through the data connections controlled by the car makers so that they have data about everything in your life. When you come and go, where you go, and the lock downs are used to keep you tied to their ecosystem in way that keeps their data feed going. We have no ability to lock them out without severely degrading functionality and that is the true reason those lockdowns exist. To keep them in the loop. Most security breaches are by so called "trusted" entities, but the thing is even the US governments own guidance on connected things is the zero trust model. You keep things offline, at least firewalled it not airgapped, until there is a documented need for it to be connected. It should not be a requirement of access their servers and asking their permission to control our things. That should be direct to the thing and people VPN it off for remote control. Cloud control through their app should only ever be an option and never the only option.